Brian Manzella
Administrator
On, November 2, 2010, I participated in a live video "non-debate" with a golf theorist named Jeff Mann.
I will try as hard as I can to stick to the facts here.
I wanted to do "conversations" that would humanize the folks behind the screenanmes on the internet.
But Jeff wanted a "debate." I didn't want to debate "what to teach" with someone who is not a golf teacher, but I felt as though backing out would be a bad idea.
The night before, we tested the set-up and I spent a fair amount of time explaining Mike Jacobs' position that was one of his "questions." Jeff didn't even realize who Mike was talking about, but he soon did, and I thought we agreed not to waste anytime on that subject.
Of course, the 1st thing that Jeff brought up in the "debate," was just that.
In my world, teaching real golfers in the real world, my eyes are priceless to me. Often it was the difference between one teacher's success, and another's lack of it.
But we live in the 21st Century, and we have small hand-held cameras that take 7 to 17 times more pictures than standard video with up to 1/10,000th of a second shutter speed, machines that measure the movement of the golf club trough the ball, the flight of the ball, and the movement & acceleration in 3D space of the segments of the body.
In other words, like my friend James Leitz says, "Why guess if you can measure?"
There has been a fair amount of scientific research on the golf swing by real scientists in the last few years, and some of that research includes a two-pendulum model.
There is a whole field of study and business called Golf Biomechanics, thats main purpose is to study and teach body movements that efficiently create power, and help with desired club delivery.
Mr. Mann discounted any conclusions from math models like Dr. Zick and Dr. Jorgensen's, the ability of 6°3D machine to effectively measure and evaluated movement and power creation, and all the the research and power creation science of real degreed bio-mechanists like Rob Neal.
The "debate" had no chance to be worthwhile because of these main reasons. I had also requested that Jeff took his concepts "out of the TGM wrapper" and present them in regular language, to remove fact from faith. Of course, he wanted none of that as well.
So, I learned a lesson, and just like my move away from the book, I am moving away even further away from trying to convince and smarten up people who's beliefs are rooted in "I can plainly see what kind of power application someone is using on video (including 60fps, low shutter speed video)."
My entire focus will now be producing whole bunch of new improved content.
There will be no more debate on non- scientifically verified golf movements on this site, ever again.
The folks out in golfland with methods they believe in with all their hearts and souls, despite any real scientific evidence to support it, have my utmost compassion. Golf is a hard game. There are PGA Tour players who won't play with a golf ball with the wrong number on it, probably because hey have anecdotal evidence they play better when they don't.
I am going to be 50 years old next year if the Lord says the same, and am at least halfway to the end of my time on the planet. I better start making some more history if I want to be remembered for advancing my profession and sport after I leave this earth.
So please excuse me, I have a lot of work to do.
Brian Manzella
I will try as hard as I can to stick to the facts here.
I wanted to do "conversations" that would humanize the folks behind the screenanmes on the internet.
But Jeff wanted a "debate." I didn't want to debate "what to teach" with someone who is not a golf teacher, but I felt as though backing out would be a bad idea.
The night before, we tested the set-up and I spent a fair amount of time explaining Mike Jacobs' position that was one of his "questions." Jeff didn't even realize who Mike was talking about, but he soon did, and I thought we agreed not to waste anytime on that subject.
Of course, the 1st thing that Jeff brought up in the "debate," was just that.
In my world, teaching real golfers in the real world, my eyes are priceless to me. Often it was the difference between one teacher's success, and another's lack of it.
But we live in the 21st Century, and we have small hand-held cameras that take 7 to 17 times more pictures than standard video with up to 1/10,000th of a second shutter speed, machines that measure the movement of the golf club trough the ball, the flight of the ball, and the movement & acceleration in 3D space of the segments of the body.
In other words, like my friend James Leitz says, "Why guess if you can measure?"
There has been a fair amount of scientific research on the golf swing by real scientists in the last few years, and some of that research includes a two-pendulum model.
There is a whole field of study and business called Golf Biomechanics, thats main purpose is to study and teach body movements that efficiently create power, and help with desired club delivery.
Mr. Mann discounted any conclusions from math models like Dr. Zick and Dr. Jorgensen's, the ability of 6°3D machine to effectively measure and evaluated movement and power creation, and all the the research and power creation science of real degreed bio-mechanists like Rob Neal.
The "debate" had no chance to be worthwhile because of these main reasons. I had also requested that Jeff took his concepts "out of the TGM wrapper" and present them in regular language, to remove fact from faith. Of course, he wanted none of that as well.
So, I learned a lesson, and just like my move away from the book, I am moving away even further away from trying to convince and smarten up people who's beliefs are rooted in "I can plainly see what kind of power application someone is using on video (including 60fps, low shutter speed video)."
My entire focus will now be producing whole bunch of new improved content.
There will be no more debate on non- scientifically verified golf movements on this site, ever again.
The folks out in golfland with methods they believe in with all their hearts and souls, despite any real scientific evidence to support it, have my utmost compassion. Golf is a hard game. There are PGA Tour players who won't play with a golf ball with the wrong number on it, probably because hey have anecdotal evidence they play better when they don't.
I am going to be 50 years old next year if the Lord says the same, and am at least halfway to the end of my time on the planet. I better start making some more history if I want to be remembered for advancing my profession and sport after I leave this earth.
So please excuse me, I have a lot of work to do.
Brian Manzella